Lawyers will make their closing speeches today in the trial of Ian Stewart who is accused of murdering the children’s author Helen Bailey.

The judge will then sum up the case and the jury is expected to start considering its verdict on Monday afternoon.

The trial, in its sixth week at St Albans Crown Court, has been told that Stewart, fiancé of the wealthy writer, allegedly slowly drugged her for months before killing her and dumping her body into a hidden underground cesspit at their £1.5 million Royston home.

Stewart, of Baldock Road, Royston, is accused of drugging Helen Bailey with the sleeping drug Zopiclone before carrying out the murder and concealing her body in the cesspit, together with her pet dog.

Stewart denies murder, fraud, preventing a lawful burial and three counts of perverting the course of justice.

Court adjourned for the day

That’s the end of the evidence for today. The case will continue tomorrow morning.

15:58

If Helen had died after marrying Stewart, he could have been more than £1 million better off

“The prosecution have to find some reason as to what would have motivated Stewart to kill Helen, so think ‘let’s jump onto her wealth’.

“A nice idea that, but sadly just not true.

“And as you now know if she had died before the wedding, the consequences financially, were dire.

“Just suppose that Stewart and Helen had married in September, five months later.

“How much better off could he have been an hour after their wedding?

“How much better off could he have been if they had married before Helen died? Possibly more than £1million better off.

“So why on earth would he have not waited until after their wedding?”

15:52

'How can the murder of Helen be financially motivated if Stewart only needed to wait a couple of months and he could have been £1.5million or so better off?'

“She has written of him with a tenderness and an appreciation of his affection and support for her.

“He didn’t rush into a relationship with her. Yes it was physical within a month, but might Helen have been equally as eager for it to become an intimate relationship?

“Was it him jumping on her, or her jumping on him, or was it mutual?

“Stewart didn’t force her to sleep with him. There’s no suggestion of rape or pressure.

“Do you think Helen is someone who would have stood for that?

“Helen was someone who understood the difference between his character and her former husband John’s character.

“Stewart was giving her the time and space to move on.

“She wanted to buy a house and move in with him. She wanted to be in a relationship with her, and when he proposed to her she accepted with no hesitation.

“The two of them planned their wedding and future together.

“Is this picture presented to you one of the damaged relationship that you might imagine when someone plans to kill their partner? “How can the murder of Helen be financially motivated if Stewart only needed to wait a couple of months and he could have been £1.5million or so better off?”

15:49

Defence says Ms Bailey was intelligent and perceptive yet she never voiced any concerns about Stewart

“Why in the numerous correspondence that we know Helen Bailey conducted, isn’t there a single reference to some unease or unhappiness in the way Stewart was towards her?

“Why is that, if there has been this plot or plan to kill her?

“This was not a short term relationship where he could have masked his true personality. You get to know someone, and Ms Bailey was a highly intelligent and perceptive individual.

“Do you believe she would not have, at some stage, seen an aspect of Stewart’s personality or of their relationship that would not have caused her to recall to someone?”

15:46

Defence tells court there were no signs of animosity

“Do you not think that if someone was plotting to murder their partner that there just might be some small sign or indication of that? “Animosity, dislike, presumably total hatred?

“There is nothing like that at all. With all the months of police probing, the questioning of everyone who knew Helen and Stewart, the examination of computer after computer, phone records, that that would have revealed the existence or some sort of evidence, some sort of complaint somewhere about the behaviour of the other?

“Two eyewitnesses who lived in the house with them, Stewart’s sons, gave evidence. The couple’s friends. Helen’s brother, her mother. “Not a single one says anything that would indicate any issue or tension.

“Jamie Stewart said money was never an issue when they were growing up. He said Stewart loved Boris too.

“Alex McGarry said Helen and Stewart had a loving relationship.

“John Bailey, said he never heard Helen say a bad thing about Stewart.

“If Helen was going to confide in anybody, surely he would be the person.”

15:41

'This couple loved each other, it's in the book'

Simon Russell Flint is now reading extracts from Helen’s book, When Bad Things Happen in Good Bikinis.

“This book is dedicated to my gorgeous grey haired widower, I love you, you are my life.

“This couple loved each other, it’s in the book. They were both seeking solace in bereaved groups and that’s how they met, but she contacted him.

“They were more than happy together - no one disputes this.”

15:39

'Their life was more than going well, it was almost idyllic'

“Financial gain is Stewart’s sole motive, say the prosecution, and you may think it’s total rubbish.

“It’s not money, or greed, that you could properly conclude in any way as a motive that Stewart killed Helen Bailey.

“Their life was more than going well, it was almost idyllic, you’ve seen the comfortable warm lovely home they had. “Space for her, space for him, space for Boris, space for the boys, a big swimming pool.

“Perfect for all their needs. He wouldn’t want any of that without Helen Bailey.

“And given the loss he suffered many are not fortunate to find again, the love of a good woman who, on the evidence, more than loved him.

“The Crown say he is a predator, but he is no stalker searching for bereaved widows and seeking to get their money.

“He was a widower himself.”

15:37

'There was no massive expenditure or change to spending patterns after her death'

“Are there sudden massive withdrawals of money from the joint account after Helen’s death? No.

“There is no different pattern of spending, no personal amounts removed, no transfers of money to his account.

“Once the money goes in from Helen’s amended Barclay’s payment on May 9, are there any massive payments? No.

“Only the Arsenal season tickets, which he thought only he could do in her name and using her card for their joint account.

“This was to ensure continuity, and to ensure Helen wouldn’t lose out on those season tickets.

“It’s hardly earth shattering expenditure.”

15:34

'On the day he is meant to have killed her he had £22,000 in the join account'

“We say this was Helen Bailey using Stewart’s computer, because her desk was always cluttered and his laptop had the advantage of being plugged into that large screen.

“He was either upstairs having a rest asleep, or he was asleep in the green chair.

“This nonsense that Helen would have to be logging onto Stewart’s computer sitting on his lap is ridiculous.

“The prosecution are ignoring the physical evidence that the photographs of the house pick out.

“If this man is a computer expert and is going to try to cover his tracks on his computer, surely this expert could have deleted the whole of his internet history so as not to leave any trace of any log in on his computer.

“So Stewart has killed Helen for greed, out of money, and has changed the standing order.

“On April 11, the day he is meant to have killed her, he had £22,000 in the joint account, let alone what is in his account.

“He doesn’t need further monthly transfers in.”

15:21

Defence say Helen could have made the failed log-in attempts to the couple's join account

“You heard from witnesses yesterday that said Helen Bailey was still alive on the afternoon of April 11.

“But there is a log in at 2.28pm to Helen’s account using her pin and debit card.

“There were two failed attempts to set up a standing order to the couple’s joint account.

“Rather than risk three failed attempts and possibly a lock out, the pre-existing one was amended, from £600 to £4,000 a month. “Who’s the most likely candidate for having made a computer error? Stewart, the Crown say a computer expert, or Helen Bailey?

“Why having just killed your partner, if it’s Stewart and he’s trying to pretend to be Helen, why would he be so stupid to use his computer to log in to her bank, rather than use hers if she’s dead in the cesspit as the prosecution say?”

15:16

The standing order for £4,000 was never spent by Stewart

“The prosecution say it was Stewart that changed the standing order. Is that really what someone who just killed his partner would go on and do within an hour or so of killing her? Is that really their case?

“That £4,000, four weeks later, is never spent. Stewart doesn’t draw out the money, it’s not spent at all.”

15:02

'He did not need any more money'

“The only reason the Crown canvassed in front of you, because there’s nothing else, is money.

“Why would Stewart want to kill Helen? What motive did he have? What caused him, this smart, loving, family man aged 55 at the time, with no history or background of violence at all - what made him suddenly decide to kill Helen Bailey?

“The reality is that this is one of the hardest if not impossible questions for the Crown to answer, because there is no sensible reason. “What you would want to know before you convicted someone, is the answer to that question.”

14:58

'It's always the partner, isn't it?'

“The pressure is on for you to do the right thing.

“Next week, what’s going to happen to you after this is all over?

“The 12 of you randomly selected to come to this court each day and to form this jury?

“You’re going to be going back to your everyday lives, and people will be asking you what you have been up to for seven or eight weeks.

“It’s always the partner, isn’t it? The one who gives the impassioned plea to the press, organising searches, pleading with the missing person to come home.

“It’s always them isn’t it? It’s always the last person to claim to have seen her alive.

“You might say ‘well we all think that, who else could it be?’

“You might say ‘The Joe and Nick story, interesting, but how can we prove it’s true?’

“It isn’t for Mr Stewart to have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, to make us sure.

“You might say there are a number of highly speculative theories on the prosecution’s part.

“Even when the logic of their own case crumbled in front of our very eyes.

“We were told not to decide the case on speculation, but on actual evidence.”

Defence case begins its closing speech

“So what do you think? It’s obvious according to Mr Trimmer, a slam dunk. An obvious decision.

“There’s considerable pressure being heaped upon you to do the right thing.

“This is the awful monstrous man who killed this lovely children’s author, a tragic widow.

“He’s the man who killed the defenseless Boris the dog.

“Do you have the strength of mind and the courage to listen to and analyse all the evidence, and to consider that with an open and unprejudiced mind?

“Are you going to be able to resist the temptation to not engage in speculation or guesswork?

“Not to indulge your own emotions when one considers the body of a lady and a dog in a cesspit?”

“If you have any reasonable doubts, you must find Stewart not guilty of each of the charges.

“You must be brave, and must consider whether you have to courage and strength to do that.”

14:43

Stewart is 'quite simply, a devious killer'

“Stewart is the Gorgeous Grey Haired Widower. You’ve seen him, heard his story, how he came into contact with Helen, how she changed her entire wealth structure in his favour.

“And you’ve heard a host of lies from the defendant.

“He is quite simply, a devious killer.”

That’s the end of Mr Trimmer’s closing speech.

14:41

'Why would Nick and Joe want to kill Helen and Boris?'

“One of the most powerful questions for a jury to ask of a story or tale or piece of evidence is why? I suggest you ask that question.

“Why was Helen killed if Nick and Joe took her? What would that achieve?

“She had no access to anything very much, she couldn’t find anything.

“Stewart was not asked to get anything, There were no demands made.

“They didn’t say ‘we’ll kill her unless you do this’.

“Don’t all kidnappers do that?

“Why was Boris killed? Why didn’t they just leave him? They didn’t need to take him at all.

“What was the toy in the cesspit? Why the pillow slip? Because they were part of the killing of Helen Bailey.”

14:37

'The tale beyond this becomes so absurd that a child who wrote it in his essay aged 11 might be laughed at by the rest of his class'

“The tale beyond this becomes so absurd that a child who wrote it in his essay aged 11 might be laughed at by the rest of his class. “What we have is Stewart in custody, somebody attacks him and says ‘don’t snitch’ which he takes to mean not to tell police about what had actually happened.

“So have Nick and Joe got the entirety of Bedford Prison under control?

“A little while later, somebody comes with an illicit phone inside the prison.

“On the other end is someone who says ‘sorry about Helen’. Do kidnappers do that?

“And some time later ‘you need not worry about Joe he has been dealt with. You can tell police what happened’.

“It’s your judgement not mine, but this is total fantasy.”

14:36

'Why was there no mention of compensation or sleeping drugs in defence case statement?'

“In the defence case statement, there is no mention of half a million pounds required in compensation.

“How can it be that you forget that?

“And zopiclone is central to the prosecution allegation against him. How can you forget that Helen Bailey searched for it, told him he couldn’t take it, took it off him, and said she’d take it herself?

“How does the defendant forget that?

“He said the reason zopiclone wasn’t in the defence case statement was because he didn’t think it was relevant.”

'This is a full-blown, straightforward lie'

“This defendant has two good friends called Nick and Joe. They may or may not look like his story of Nick and Joe.

“Stewart struggled to remember what he was talking about, giving the name Dave at one stage.

“If you’re going to pull out something from your mental filing cabinet it’s easy to pull out a name, and stick with a name you actually know.

“This is a full blown, straightforward lie.”

14:33

'Why on earth would the kidnappers want to meet in Broadstairs and why would they want Helen's phone?'

“These people have to have Stewart go to Broadstairs, because by now Stewart knows the phone has been seen in Broadstairs.

“Why on earth would the kidnappers want to meet in Broadstairs, and why would they want Helen’s phone?

“What can that phone have in it in any value to Nick and Joe? It first went on the network in 2011.

“John Sinfield died before 2011.

“The only purpose of weaving that into the story is to get the phone to the router in Broadstairs.”

14:31

'This tales becomes utterly absurd'

“Lie number two begins to emerge on November 16, and 21, through the defence case statement. “The Crown say the defence case statement was late because Stewart was bereaving away, filling the statement with every part he could of this tale he had made up. “But in order to do so this tale becomes utterly absurd.

“This tale involves people called Nick and Joe, who have no names beyond that, it involves kidnappers who exposed themselves to the defendant - there was no need to do that, because according to this defendant they knew his phone number.

“Why would they bother to risk coming to the house?”

14:30

'She was sitting at her desk with no shoes on when she was smothered'

“You saw how carefully Helen’s body was taken out of the pit, by the side so it came out as far as possible, in the condition it went in. “So Nathaniel Cary, the pathologist, can tell you what he found.

“But he didn’t find much at all. There were no broken bones, no obvious bruises, nothing there which showed she had been beaten, had her legs or arms broken, or had her head stoved in. She had no shoes on.

“Nick and Joe had dealt with her so carefully when they killed her had they?

“Stewart told you that Nick and Joe showed him how they would deal with Helen by putting a hand round his neck.

“By this time he had seen the pathologist’s report, saying that he couldn’t exclude that Helen was smothered.

“Why was she wearing no shoes? Because she was sitting at her desk with no shoes on. And she was smothered and taken as she was, to that cesspit.”

14:29

"He ought to have said: ' I'm going to get those people. I don't care what they'll do to me'."

“He would have still run with lie number one, but he is released on bail until July 12.

“He can’t live in the house anymore because searches go on until July 15.

“He has to stay in a hotel, along with his two sons.

“On July 15, police find Helen’s body, the dog’s body and the other things in the cesspit, and Stewart is arrested again.

“His sons are nearby, he knows where they are.

“There’s no doubt now that Helen Bailey is not only dead, but somebody has put her in the cesspit full of excrement, together with the dog, the toy, pillow slip and some bin bags.

“The woman he spent all that time with is now without doubt dead, and has been dealt with in the most awful fashion. That ought to be enough, for him to say ‘I’m going to get those people, I don’t care what they’ll do to me’.

“He said he couldn’t tell police about Nick and Joe because of threats to his two sons. His sons were in a hotel that day.

“But he said nothing at all”.

14:26

'What he didn't say on his arrest was anything about Nick, Joe, zoplicone, about a reward'

“This is the mind of the man who has now been arrested for murder, he’s entitled not to answer questions, and can sit there and say nothing.

“But the words of the caution effectively say beware if you don’t answer the questions now, some time down the line if in court you tell a story, the jury might well think you made it up.

“And I suggest that’s exactly what you should think.

“What he didn’t say on his arrest was anything about Nick, Joe, zopiclone, about a reward.

“None of that he now tells you is true.

“The Crown say he is hiding behind his legal advice.”

14:24

'If Nick and Joe were true he knows the woman he allowed to be kidnapped is now dead'

Mr Trimmer continues: “Stewart has been arrested for murder. If Nick and Joe were true, he knows the woman he allowed to be kidnapped was now dead.

“Stewart sat on the stairs and said ‘bloody hell why? What happened?’ but he does understand. According to him he knows full well where she is - with the supposed kidnappers.

“He then says ‘Have you found Helen? Where is she? I don’t know why the garage door is open’. Why in that moment of crisis does the garage pop into his head? That’s the least he should be concerned about.”

14:23

Prosecution continues closing speech

Prosecutor Stuart Trimmer is continuing his closing speech.

“The Crown say Helen Bailey’s phone was later disposed of where it would never be found. It couldn’t be tracked, because there was no sim card in it.

“He also searched for reductions of these terms. None of the terms could be found in the searches on the device.

“The internet search history of the device dated March 30 and April 19.”

12:59

Court takes lunch break

“Stewart then texts Helen’s phone and says ‘police won’t tell me where you are if you don’t want them to. They can stop all the fuss’. “Why write that? The kidnappers have apparently got the phone, so why would he be texting that phone this text? “This is to reinforce the impression that his lover has walked out the door. The only reason he’s writing this is to cover his tracks.” There will now be a break until 2.05pm.